Ron, I believe your statement is wrong. The WG has expressed strong preference for a single data plane solution.
From the chairs emails: “Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one data plane solution …” “There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution…” I hope we all agree that RFC8986 is not defining 36 different dataplane solutions. 😉 Cheers, Pablo. From: Ron Bonica <[email protected]> Sent: martes, 5 de octubre de 2021 17:38 To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]>; James Guichard <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Pablo, The WG has expressed a strong preference for having a single compression *behavior*. Why is it OK to ignore that preference because RFC 8986 has 36 different behaviors? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:32 PM To: James Guichard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; SPRING WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ RFC8986 already defines 36 different behaviors. This document, CSID, is a single SRv6-based solution that only defines additional behaviors with the next and replace flavors.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
